Cory Santos

Nice Kirk.

The fact that they are to be secret until then is strange. Based on the families public comments, I do not think they seem to dig into any of this. The grandson gave his opinion and Caroline does not seem to have any interest, but, Robert Kennedy, Jr. does. He has made his feelings quite clear.

I was waiting to see if anyone would mention S.A. Adams. After reading the prior posts, some of which frankly were unprofessional, I think the Adams video is where you should start John. As Paul correctly noted, it was S.A. Adams who was chasing Milteer and trying to find his whereabouts. As for opinions as to whether it looks like him or not, frankly, as I stated in my JFK assassination lecture last year, who cares? It is your opinion. If you want to prove it, hire an expert with facial recognition software and see if they can get a match. Personal non-expert opinions are worthless. There seems to be too many Ipse Dixit opinions regarding the assassination and this is a great example of such. I actually think there is a great deal of interest in Milteer, especially considering the circles he ran in which had overlap with New Orleans. If he was in Dallas, that would be 100 percent proof of a conspiracy based on his prior statements. What is strange however is if it was a conspiracy, how could they have let the recording become public? Clearly the FBI knew about him and his statements so it seems strange that if members of the organization were involved in a conspiracy that they would allow that. But, then again, I am sure if there was a conspiracy, the conspirators thought the Zapruder film would not become public. So John, to answer your question, the Milteer issue is very interesting and a "strange coincidence" that I feel leans towards more than just a coincidence. Hope that helps.

Chris, There have been videos on youtube about this-not naming the theorists that presented it. . . you know who it is...- that the car did go to far and almost stopped or did stop. Not saying this is my opinion, but, there are theories about this. Interestingly, it just occurred to me, if it did stop or almost stop, why not shoot him when he is almost stopped right in front of you? Moreover, if they new the route in advance, why was a practice run not done so that they would have noticed the danger of the hard turn and warned Greer in advance? Probably just a mistake and coincidence. Regardless, lets assume they stopped or almost stopped right in front of the depository taking the turn to avoid the side street (I have been there many times and can understand how someone could get confused with this) was that part of a plan or was it a coincidental mistake by the driver Greer?

Paul, there were Walker implications back in the 1990's. I recall, while researching my law school thesis on Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw, I ran across several theorists who mentioned Walker. The film JFK in 1991 even alludes to Walker. I have not read that book, perhaps I shall one day. Now I am busy reading the released documents. I recommend that you present your information so others can see what you have obtained in your research. It might help. But the central point is you cannot say to another theorist "show me the evidence" and then not provide real evidence to support your points. Citing a book simply is not proof.

So have you created a website or written a book or documentary which provides people the ability to hear your interviews so they can judge for themselves? I do not mind that you choose Walker as the center of or a key figure in your theory, investigate, see if you can prove anything. No problem with that. I know some people that think U.F.O.s are the real reason behind the assassination. Fine, give me the proof-witness, documents, etc. My point was your argument seems to be show me the evidence but your arguments mostly seem to say trust me, it was these people. As for the Walker connection, people many many years ago were pointing the finger at him. This did not start in 2011 if I understand your point.

Have you started something Jim? The "Paul who" movement?

right?

Lol, Paul, no offense, but I am reading this with a very neutral point of view. I do not mind if someone has a different view than I do on this event- the other night one of my good friends and I briefly discussed the subject and he has taught on the the assassination and he is a W.C. supporter and an ex. Secret Service agent. So, if I was sitting here as a judge listening to the arguments between you and the other writers, there is one thing I keep noticing. Respectfully, you present your view-without any citation to proof-and then attack others views by demanding they provide proof. Reading a book is not proof. Have you directly interviewed individuals and recorded their thoughts? Have you obtained documentary evidence that directly shows Walker was in on a plot or is this just your theory based on your speculation? Do you have direct evidence, not books written by authors, that support your conclusions which trump others? If not, respectfully, you have a theory not fact. I have had very well known individuals tell me fascinating things about this event-which I would never repeat out of respect for them and their position. To me this is first hand proof which I use for my theory formation. However, for you to attack others on this site and demand they show proof, I must sustain any objection to your argument. Proof, where is your proof Walker was involved. Not speculation or books, proof. Receipts, testimony, checks, documents of any kind, stating he was involved. If not, I understand the exhaustion many are expressing about your posts. Thanks.

Kenney, are you a mathematician, psychologist or an attorney? You seem to be claiming to be an expert in each area by the fact and method by which you reference these subjects. Actually, I do not care as to the answer. If you fail to see the coincidence or strangeness, that is fine. We disagree My post is for everyone to view and come to their own conclusions, even to those experts in various fields such as you who disagree. As such, I do not need to enhance any position as I am not furthering any position other than presenting information for people to look at.

Aw but you do not possess the degree in psychology? Kidding aside, well I disagree that it is not relevant, it fits into a legal perspective I utilize. Certainly, I never claimed it would "amaze" anyone. But to answer your question about the psychologist, my answer would be no as I have never been interviewed by a psychologist. However, I am familiar with the application and theory of the Rorschach test. As for the picture, I will leave that to Ralph Cinque to evaluate. But to suggest there is no similarity, if you looked at the picture, I think is rather disingenuous.

Thank you Sandy. Ken, 1) did you look at the picture? 2) his name was Donald Lee Oswald, his father and brother's names were Harvey Oswald. 3) He entered the Navy in 1960.

Forgive my spelling error in the title.

So, this obituary for Mr. Oswald is another example of strange coincidences. He entered the Navy in 1960, his father's name was Harvey Oswald. Please look at his photo. Your thoughts? I am not suggesting any connections here to LHO other than to point out the strange coincidences one finds are amazing. http://www.dailypress.net/obituaries/2017/05/donald-lee-oswald/ I found another recent obituary from Texas, the young lady was from Angleton Texas and had a child named Lee Oswald. Read the obituary and see the picture and let me know your thoughts.

The "strange coincidences" in this case never cease to amaze me. One strange note, the handwritten note stating "September 11, 1959" as the date he left the marines. It is a coincidence but so strange.

These are very interesting points.

Bravo! See, my legal theory perspective revolves around coincidences. They show show much of the truth, one way or the other. This case is surrounded by coincidences. The Minox camera example fits nicely in my analysis. That is, while there are coincidences in every case, some strange and bizarre, this one goes beyond a scientific explanation of pure coincidences. When the coincidences become so great that they show a pattern, then one must begin to assume that they are not coincidences. Here, we have a document inventory showing a camera. Some suggest that this camera belonged to the Paine's. A reasonable explanation. But, then you dig deeper and see more. Then as you see the mud surrounding the true evidence, you realize that the mud was put there as opposed to a true coincidence. Bravo Jim, you pushed the mud aside and provided the evidence of what happened. The mud is the proof that I believe actually shows what really happened.

So I looked at the website, great info, but, and take this as a difference of opinion, I disagree with some of the statements under the captions. But, nevertheless, I appreciate seeing this photo enhanced. I do not believe I have ever seen it previously. Cheers.

Thanks for the info, I will check out your gallery.

Could we get more info on this picture? Who took it, how did you get it, who did the digitizing and cleaning of the image, is it cropped, etc. Thanks, very interesting. Are there more coming?

So is it a coincidence - I love coincidences- then that Jeb was supposed to be the nominee and winner? Would he have released anything? If this was even on Trump's radar, I wonder why he did not bring this to the floor in the debates yet used the assassination to question Cruz's dad. Hmm...

So, if President Trump had not won the election, which of all the candidates on both sides would have released the records. Thoughts?

I was not born obviously, but, my father Herbert Santos, Sr., was a Judge Advocate General at Stead Air Force Base. Interestingly, he recalls the base letting them leave their duties early which I found strange if there was a credible belief that there could be a Russian and/or Cuban attack or that a military response would be ordered due to another country killing JFK. There is more to the story, but that was what I feel like sharing at this time.

I agree, anyone have more substantive info on this?

Well, after reading these points and both sides, while interesting, respectfully, my thoughts are: 1) Paul/Jason, you cannot say show me documents and then discredit an opinion by then not showing any documents to support your opinion. 2) Paul/Jason, you cannot say that Ruby pointed the finger in his testimony at the JBS and Walker based on one paragraph. His whole testimony must be considered. He did not say black and white it even was JBS and/or Walker as being responsible "for the assassination" and you are discounting the rest of his testimony. You are speculating as to what he meant. Interpretation. That is it. 3) you cannot claim the W.C. lawyer was in on a conspiracy or knew of a conspiracy simply because he asked questions that I (or any other competent trial lawyer) would have asked as well had I been in his shoes. 4) you cannot say that because questions were answered in the negative, that somehow that means they really were in the positive. The testimony is clear by Ruby and Walker. I find your theory interesting, but, using your logic at its most basic level, I could point the finger at many other people and back it up with half documents/facts and speculation. Last year when I spoke about the assassination in Reno, I discussed my perspective of "strange coincidences" of which there are many in this case. The problem with some conspiracists (overall not you) in many areas is they take these as pure direct evidence of a fact. It is not. Alone, strange coincidences do not prove a fact. While they can be used to weaken the Oswald did it theory in front of a jury by putting doubt in a jurors mind, it does not prove a fact generally without other facts/documents/evidence which the "strange coincidence" supports or, alternatively is supported by the fact/document/evidence. You cannot prove with documents that the cabinets did not exist it seems and they cannot prove they exist with documents. You are both then at a stand still. So, I disagree, respectfully. . . as a trial lawyer I need more. But I applaud you trying to fill in gaps and having a theory and actually looking at evidence in the case. Keep researching, etc. I find nothing wrong with that. I do think rather than looking for documents or cabinets that might not exist or were destroyed, the best option at this point is to contact people alive that were in the DPD and try and get someone to talk that has first hand information. If enough people with first hand knowledge speak out, then you have more substantial proof. But time is ticking. That is perhaps one main reason these documents were not released decades ago when people were still alive-and now not letting out the unredacted documents merely because some people are living. That is the true evidence at this point that is needed to show what really happened. Perhaps the release will be of some benefit, I think it already has been in many ways. I am going to go watch the fights on TV.